Just a thought here - Republicans in SF should vote for Cindy Sheehan in the 2008 election. Here's why.

As usual, no Republican stands a chance of defeating Nancy Pelosi in 2008. Voting Republican (or not voting at all) is really a wasted effort. However, combining the Republican vote in San Francisco with the far left lunatic fringe vote would give Sheehan a very good showing in San Francisco and I don't think it's impossible she could win. A tremendous long shot to be sure, but not impossible.

Quite frankly, I don't think Cindy Sheehan would be any more of a wack job than Pelosi, Feinswein or Boxer. The upside would be that she's a junior member and will probably upset alot of Dems for challenging Pelosi. Perhaps it would be a good divide and conquer tactic.

Quite frankly, I don't think Cindy Sheehan would be any more of a wack job than Pelosi, Feinswein or Boxer. The upside would be that she's a junior member and will probably upset alot of Dems for challenging Pelosi. Perhaps it would be a good divide and conquer tactic.

It's a great strategy. It gets rid of Pelosi's power and installs a lunatic who would be so involved with the lunatic fringe stuff that she could drive the Demo power base nuts.

has anyone found out what her stance on firearms is? I actually think she is pro-2nd amendment. Mind I say that I THINK and have no concrete evidence. One she is from the free state of Texas and two she did vote for Bush back in 2000. The only problem is that she might take up the cause of being anti-2nd amendment just to pander to the antis in SF. Although I would think it would be smarter for her to do just the opposite because I would think she might find a surprising surge of support. If she's smart she could rally the anti-Pelosis by choosing an agenda that is different from Pelosi. Although it seems she couldn't win just on her looks. SF doesn't seem to like ugly candidates (Newsom, Pelosi aren't too hard on the eyes yall have to admit) or if they are ugly they would have to be minority or homosexual. My take on this.

I don't think Sheehan has any chance of winning. That's unfortunate because if Sheehan won, someone else (not Pelosi, not Sheehan) would become the speaker, and that would be good. Sheehan would be an ineffective, disruptive person, which is a lot better than Pelosi, who is an effective leader.

However... I would rather vote Libertarian, to "send a message", or vote Republican, to send a message to the Republican leadership that there is Republican support even in SF.

There's a cycle going on here: Republicans think that no Republican is electable in SF, so they don't bother to run campaigns there, so they get creamed, so they think that no Republican is electable in SF.

One other point: Teach people how to shoot, especially in SF!

Quote:

has anyone found out what her stance on firearms is? I actually think she is pro-2nd amendment.

I don't know. We're all assuming that she's a left-wing gun-banning nut but that's not necessarily a good assumption. I know that she is anti income tax, for example.

There's a cycle going on here: Republicans think that no Republican is electable in SF, so they don't bother to run campaigns there, so they get creamed, so they think that no Republican is electable in SF.

No Republican is electable in SF for CA senate/assembly or US Congress (i.e, Pelosi replacement) - even a Giuliani-non-Republican-Republican. The numbers just don't work, unless a pro-choice gay were to run as a Republican for a state assembly seat (which is the only combination with some plausibility).

Sure, there may be one local supervisor from the Sunset/West Portal area that might make it (and not necessarily as there are city-wide seats too, not sure the split btwn district and at-large sea

__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life memberNo postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, areto be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Netownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

I don't know what tickles your fancy but Marey Carey (pornstar) ran for Governor a few years back.

__________________"America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall."

Quote:

Originally Posted by berto

You're right. There's no possible way that CGN members marching alongside the Pink Pistols in the SF Pride Parade can do anything to dispel the stereotype that gun owners are conservative bigots clinging to their guns and bibles. Not a single person in the crowd is rational or reachable because the parade's for gay folks and it's in SF.

No Republican is electable in SF for CA senate/assembly or US Congress (i.e, Pelosi replacement) - even a Giuliani-non-Republican-Republican. The numbers just don't work, unless a pro-choice gay were to run as a Republican for a state assembly seat (which is the only combination with some plausibility).

Well, then it would be great to get a pro-choice gay Republican. They're out there. Remember, SF is a gay mecca not because so many gays are born there, but because so many gays move there, from places like Idaho and so on. They wake up in Idaho one day, realize that they are gay and will not be happy in Idaho, and move to SF. They still take their Idaho upbringing and values with them, so they can be quite conservative actually.

The current Republican administration is actually quite gay-friendly: the VP's daughter is openly lesbian and was involved in his campaign, and the current Secretary of State is also a lesbian.

Well, there isn't evidence in the form of her saying, "Yup, I'm a lesbian", or her coaching a womens basketball team, but then again, Liberace denied being gay until his death (of AIDS). It's kinda like that.

Sure I'd vote for Sheehan over a Republican that wouldent stand a snowballs chance. Just the fact that Cindy has recognized what a sad sack Pelosi is, and how out of touch she is with her own base show's me Sheehan at least has a level of idealogical integrity that Pelosi lacks (even if the ideology irrational).